You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

This inspection was carried out on 13 and 14 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Cornford House is a purpose-built modern building that provides accommodation and nursing and personal care for up to 70 people, in a range of studio or one bedroom suites, with en-suite shower rooms. People living in Cornford House are either owner occupiers or tenants. Nursing and personal care is provided by staff on site although people are able to choose another care provider if they wish; no one received care from another provider at the time of our inspection. If people choose to have their care provided by Cornford House Limited, they will have two agreements with the provider, one for their tenancy and a separate one for their care. At the time of our inspection, there were 53 tenants living in the service. The service provides nursing care across all floors. The second floor supports people living with dementia or mental health needs, some of whom also require nursing care. People had varying care and support needs. Some people were living with dementia, whilst others had diabetes, Parkinson's disease and physical disabilities.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection on 13 and 14 July 2017, we found that the registered provider had made improvements to the culture of the service and the care people received. A new management team had been introduced to implement and monitor improvements in the service. However, new monitoring systems needed to be embedded and improvements needed to be sustained over time. At this inspection we found that new systems were embedded and sustained and the service that people received had improved.

People were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incidents of harm. Staff received training in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the registered provider's procedures. People's needs were met by sufficient number of staff who had undergone safe recruitment checks.

Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. People's care records were held securely and these records were reviewed and any changes to people's care and support needs had been recorded.

Medicines were administered to people in a safe way. Records for the administration of medicines were maintained and medicines were stored safely.

Before people moved into the service they had their needs assessed to ensure the service could meet them. Once people moved into the service, detailed person centred care plans were prepared, with important information recorded to assist and guide staff to meet people’s needs.

People had access to nutritious food and refreshments. Support was offered to maintain dignity and respect to those who could not fully manage themselves. This included, for example, help with meals, personal care and mobility.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. Care records seen confirmed visits from healthcare professionals had been recorded.

Systems involving digital technology were used and these enabled the service to provide care and support tailored to people’s requirements and preferences. It also helped the service move forward. People participated in activities they enjoyed and were encouraged and supported to socialise. People were supported to maintain relationships which mattered to them.

Staff understood people's needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff communicated with people in the manner they understood. Staff supported people to express their views. People and their relatives were involved in their care planning and their views respected.

Staff had the necessary guidance when they required it and were appropriately trained for their role. Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves as legally required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been submitted to the local authority.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and were confident that if they did, the management would respond to them appropriately. Effective systems were implemented to manage any complaints that the service received.

The environment was safe, clean and hygienic. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. Suitable checks were made on the premises and equipment to ensure they were safe. Emergency contingency plans were in place in case of emergencies.

Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of service provided and the management team was open, transparent and visible during the inspection process. Action plans had been developed, lessons were learned when things went wrong and when improvements needed to be made. This helped to ensure the people that lived at Cornford House received a good quality service.

The provider had submitted statutory notifications and had displayed its inspection rating in the service and on its website as legally required.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected by the safeguarding practices in the service and staff were confident in reporting any suspected incidents of abuse.

People had sufficient risk assessments in place which ensured they were provided with safe care.

People's medicines were managed safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people�s needs. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to employ suitable staff at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported through regular supervision, annual appraisals and training.

We observed a positive lunchtime dining experience where people were supported by staff with their meals when this was required.

People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed it.

The service monitored people's ability to make decisions for themselves and provided support to people when they were unable to do so as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were positive and complimentary regarding the caring nature of staff at the service.

We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and those who lived at the service. Staff spent time talking and socialising with people

People and staff were treated equally. Staff were aware of people's religious and cultural preferences. Records confirmed people had been involved in decisions about their care.

People were respected, their dignity was maintained and where possible independence was encouraged.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was responsive.

The care plans we saw were well written and person centred documents. They included people's likes, dislikes and preferences.

Technology was used in the service to provide tailored support to meet people's needs, keep them engaged positively and reduce social isolation.

There was a system in place to manage and record complaints and compliments.

The service supported people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified pain free death.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was well-led.

People who used the service, relatives, key professionals and staff were all positive about the management team and the changes they had made since commencing their roles.

Regular quality assurance checks were carried out to identify any

improvements required and actions were taken in good time as necessary.

People, relatives and staff had ways to feedback to the provider through surveys and meetings.

The registered manager submitted statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission when these were required.